God is "...the principles of language effecting will"? That is like calling a baby's post-babble "God." If you mean god in the poetic or pantheistic sense like Einstein or Spinoza when they referred to the universe or nature itself, I can understand. But I must agree with Dawkins that the pantheistic vernacular can be misleading and tempts many to believe in intelligent design or creationism.

The proto phenomenon that leads to language is the product of the blind forces of nature. It is not the God of religious scripture let alone some divine plan. It is not a living intelligent supernatural being who intervenes in human affairs for His amusement.

There is no evidence that God exists. None whatsoever.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Apparently you cannot think by definition.An animal looks at god as the biggest, badest animal, but a rational mind thinks in this wise.

Language is the only power a mind can have, know or perform. Therefore,

In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God.

I see you cannot actually understand what was written. As a thing is not different from itself, and the all mighty, and all powerful, is language, than God is Truth. Easy metaphors.

The tipping point between an animal psychology, is "do you worship the golden calf"? I.e, the animal of great value, or do you worship truth? i.e. functional language?

The human race is young, during evolution this point in psychology will also come to pass. It was echoed in Plato's Truth is independent of gods and men, and in psychology based on doing one's own work. Confucius's rectification of names, without it man does not know what to do, ie. language in Truth is God. Currently man is proto-linguistic. Bordering between two distinct psychologies. Take the animal out of man by teaching him what he is, what he is for, and how to do his own work. Then you understand God not as an animal, but as a man.

Today, all governments are based on animal aggressive power, not on the shaping of human will through personal psychological development. That is why education really has the short end of the stick.

You cannot work for a better tomorrow, if you have no idea where you are at today.

Look up my essay on the Internet Archive, the Difference between Man and beast. You will see how language was used to seal the Book, because language is the only power a mind has, can understand, or wield. Think about this, you can reject any particular golden calf, any particular religion based on an animated god, but you cannot reject being rational, you can only be a rational reject.

If someone tells you to learn judgment, and then says that they are truth and the only god there is, do you divide your mind because you cannot judge, or do you see the metaphor, as a rational mind would? Do you see the simile in multis, the similar idea as a function of language, or do you seek just something to tell you what to do. Language is for the production of human will, it is not for its destruction. God is not a foolish animal.

There are two forms of linguistic usage, thinking by enumeration, which is proto-linguistic, and thinking by definition. Currently, mankind generally does not know the difference. In my work, I point it out, step by step. There is a great psychological distinction between the two, some psychology books ponder about the difference because not even their authors understand it.

History is guided by servants of God, God as a functional psychology. It is, however, a psychology sealed to understanding while the animal psychology rules.

A sapient psychology, understanding that its only power is language, does his best to comprehend it, it is his tool. Language is based on a Two Element Metaphysics, being explored by some early Greeks, and even in the Judeo-Christian Scripture, is denoted as Two Tablets of Law. Logic and Analogic. They must be understood and paired, like a formal demonstration. So, we seek our education as the same, because it is true, perception determines conception, conception determines will. Or in a metaphor, a dark saying, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One.

Plato was simply wrong in assuming that by understanding one fundamental one can understand all. I also don't do metaphors to explain or evidence anthropic concepts such as the Biblical celestial Boss who is clearly painted as having human emotions. They also say God is everywhere and yet the word clearly isn't. Humans are the only species on Earth that have language, the only beings that understand the imperious "ought" that marks our conscience and define will, motivation etc.

So, what you choose to call "God" I don't see it as such. In fact I don't even see God as a man either - I don't see Him period!

In the beginning there was word? What is this medieval babble? Genesis? In the beginning, way before Earth was conceived (let alone thought of), there were quantum fluctuations that propagated space and time in an epic "bang" because, quantum-mechanically speaking, the probability for something (initially lifeless) to arise was unimaginably great. No gods or deities required (physical, like the Tertullian way, metaphysical, or otherwise).

Life had to wait a good few billion years after the Big Bang. And then you came along and quote scripture written by philistines as if that proves something. I can tolerate and understand Spinoza's pantheism, or Thomas Paine's deism, which are venial given the epochs in which these two fine gentlemen lived in - but metaphors to substantiate dubious postulates? No. You are wondering why people ignored your idea. I'm not.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Very good points!But I have one little problem. How is it, that the Einstein's of history can do the mathematics of the Universe, but could not figure out how to do the simple mathematics of a straight line and compass? They tried, but failed. How come I have to show them how to do it? How is it that they claim to be able to do the mathematics for the unimaginably large, yet could not figure out how to do the very basic? See for yourself, Basic Analog Mathematics by me. I guess Plato was right. You cannot even know what you are talking about if you cannot even do the simple. Notice that there is no such thing as an angle in the work. No such thing as Cartesian geometry, no such thing as Trigonometry in the work. It is all done by one measure, one simple language. https://archive.org/details/AUniversalLanguage

This basic first introduction is trending towards twelve volumes because it incorporates a glyph exploratory.

Oh, and since you are so well versed in Plato, I have also posted numerous audio books of his entire dialogs for free downloading. It does not hurt to know what you are talking about once in a while.

It was written in that Book, that when man's knowledge had increased, during the second coming, the wisdom of man shall perish. This is simple natural fact when a species goes from being proto-linguistic to linguistic. Knock out the foundation, and the whole falls.

One small addendum: Analog Mathematics is an Exact Mathematics. I trust you know which branches of mathematics are exact so called sciences and which are not?

And as far as the simple basics in language, I walk it down for you step by step so you do not have to do any really hard work, demonstrating that the foundation of language Plato was working with, is by definition, and physical fact, exactly correct. However, you seem to like other people tell you what to say so perhaps you can get someone else to read it for you.

Last edited by Philosopher8659 on 16 Feb 2015 02:11, edited 1 time in total.

Sometimes one cannot see what is right there in front of one's face - like the similarity between Jenny, the orangutan, and her human spectators. Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin picked up on it. Many before didn't, or if they did, didn't care to mention.

And then some of us see too much into something and connect all dots unnecessarily, to no avail. Some concepts conceived by the mind are simply nonsensical and bare no connection to reality - stuff of worlds that never were.

You mentioned human evolution. I mentioned Darwin. Man isn't being gradually molded for a particular purpose (there is no intelligent design in nature). At the roots of our DNA one finds slapdash structures that no engineer would think of conceiving - it is a hazardous web of molecules prone to begetting genetic errors and phenotypic malfunctions. Natural selection is also about adaptation (of course the "fittest" have more chances of surviving).

We survived by sticking together and as social beings, and perhaps random mutation, we developed forms of communication bound to get increasingly sophisticated. Eventually, language arose. It's not magic when you think about the time we've had to develop it.

There is no purpose, only change effected by diverse biochemistry and environmental pressures. This is Darwinian evolution. Life, in its complexity, may appear designed, but it isn't. It may suggest purpose, and indeed biased beings with egos such as ourselves are conveniently accustomed to read things that way, but the truth is that the current structure of life is dictated by adaptation, not teleology. We may derive meaning from what we see - and it may even help us to survive - but it does not make such objectively true. What is the purpose of our existence? None, really, but we can make one up in order to better our living conditions. We shouldn't say "What is the meaning of life?" We should say, "What does life mean to you?" Meaning and other illusions reside only in the mind.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

There is one small difference between us. I point you to thousands of hours of personal study, and discovery. I have written my proofs down step by step in much of the work. Well, we know where the hot air is.

Oh, and by the way. Intelligent design? A equals A. The Book uses metaphor that points to biological fact, and to logical fact. I show them to you step by step. That is if you can get your lips out from in front of your eyes.

You have probably taken the traditional approach in dividing the body into senses, instead of a correct approach, into environmental acquisition systems. They all reside under one definition, the mind is among them. This method produces, seven systems of life for man. The classical, Biblical seven lights of life. Some of them provide life by abstracting material from the environment, some of them by abstracting form. i.e. two branches of life, or laws of life.

And anyway, any uneducated person can claim that they don't know what or why they are. I think answering that question takes a bit of learning.

Let us take the digestive system. Have you ever heard it say that there is no intelligent design to eating? Does it like to digest just any odd thing that drops in? Does it say, I have no purpose? Or how about your respiratory system? Have you ever heard it say, there is no point in breathing? Or that it can simply suck up any thing at all, that it does not really matter?

Can you predicate of a first principle? Plato will show you how to answer that, and certainly one of the two of you will be wrong if you cannot comprehend what you read.

Or can it be, that the most complex system of all, is still much too young to be functional? But I think I mentioned that, didn't I?

As far as "fittest" what makes a mind fit? Not doing its job? Or if doing its job, what is that job? Search the works of Evolution, do they tell you what the job of the mind is? The Book does, and it proves it by testing your mind. I show you how to solve those tests, they simply depend upon standards of language.

https://archive.org/details/TheDifferenceBetweenManAndBeast

The solution is the job of the mind of man. It is a biological fact.

A equals A, a thing is not different from itself. This can also be said as, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Something in the universe is creating the mind of man in its own image, you can call natural selection, or God, it does not matter. By the principles of language, they must be equal. Both have the same definition. What is it creating? That is the interesting thing. What is the function and purpose of the mind. Listen to the essay, it is a video, audio essay. The answer given in the Book, hidden in a child's puzzle, a fact that science does not yet comprehend.

All you have demonstrated above, aside from the mumbo jumbo or skulduggery, is that you do not understand Darwinism. If you did you wouldn't have asked such silly questions about eating and the digestive system. The digestive system is also an adaptation after millions of years of trial and error in our evolutionary history. Many proto-systems went extinct, many systems failed to survive, before we got to where we are. And, let me append, it is still not perfect. If all this were part of a plan by some god, then such god is incredibly wasteful, unintelligent, and powerless to reach perfection. We have also had to learn what to eat and not to eat. And still today what is best for us as a whole is still debatable.

I have not heard respiratory systems say there is no point in breathing, no, why would I when it does not have a brain or a mouth of its own? I have, however, heard people say that there is no point in living and have met a few who have killed themselves. (Some divine plan!) The respiratory system can also suck up an array of dangerous substances, for instance, poisonous gases detrimental to the organism, and the living being will die. Yes it can! We have seen it do it when individuals were gassed in chambers as a death penalty. Whatever it sucks up, there will be consequences, good or bad. Does the universe care? Nope. It carries on like nothing happened. Whatever a creature does, it will matter negatively or positively to the creature itself. If it survives, it is lucky. As Carl Sagan once put it: "Extinction is the rule, survival is the exception."

Something "fit," in the Darwinian context (even though Herbert Spencer came up with it), is simply something that happens to best adapt to its environment. It happens to find a niche, you see? But just because a creature adapts well to todays environment, it doesn't mean it will remain "fit" when the environment starts to shift and begins to accomodate, perhaps, what was once unsuitable. So I hope you see now how silly it is to ask what the job of a mind is. And a mind wasn't designed with a specific purpose in mind (whose mind, one might ask, the Creator?). No. Nature simply stumbled upon minds via an accumulative process of complexity - the natural development of the human brain throughout the ages. Like a lifeless domino effect... cause and effect analogies aside.

The mind can, however, discover things which happen to be good for the organism that sustains it and may decide that it has a purpose to keep itself alive. Other minds are more suicidal, or homicidal as in the case of extreme psychopathy. Now you see how silly it would be to ask what the purpose of a serial killer is. Such psychopaths are indeed victims of their own experiences and biology. There are many kinds of minds, none of which have free will, only will guided by urges dictated by biochemistry. They don't have real purpose, only function, destructive or productive.

Complexity isn't necessarily a favourable characteristic either just as Darwinian evolution does not equate with improvement. It is more about change over time by natural selection than anything else. A simple organism such as a bacterium can have better chances of survival than an elephant and its kind can rule the planet as it were.

What good is thousands of hours of personal study when you've been asking the wrong questions (silly ones at that) and hoping to obtain results that confirm the supposed metaphors, or your own exegesis, of a book that was written aeons ago by peasants who knew less? For someone who readily accuses another of letting others think for himself you do recommend Plato and the Book a lot, my friend...

[ Post made via Android ]

Last edited by Summerlander on 16 Feb 2015 05:09, edited 3 times in total.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Like I said, I posted the evidence step by step, on line. Fault the reasoning. Do something legit. If you continue to argue as if you have no idea what a definition is, then my point is proven, you cannot reason with someone proto-linguistic.

My work proves non Euclidean mathematics of science today to be gibberish. Follow the reasoning, do you really think you are making an impression? I prove my words by the principles of language, principles not even taught in school. So tell me,

What is the naming convention of the common grammar you are now used derived from? How do you violate it? You don't even know. Is there any use of words which violates the original naming convention of a grammar besides apparent language but not real? Plato knew it, yet why hasn't linguists discovered it even when it is written in front of their face?

Read my essays, you find absolute proof that there is no book on grammar today that knows the difference between a subject and a predicate in a sentence, Plato knew, and based his arguments on it. So tell me, what is the difference between them?

Re-read my last post. Particularly about minds. I just edited it. We define things with our minds in order to communicate and navigate our way in this world.

I am not trying to make an impression either. I'm just letting you know that I am not buying this notion of yours from which you derive a metaphorical, or metaphysical, God.

Oh yeah, a predicate is more descriptive compared to the subject, or the former complements the latter in the context of a sentence where a strong distinction between the two is possible. There you go. However weird you think it is, it proves nothing.

[ Post made via Android ]

Last edited by Summerlander on 16 Feb 2015 05:05, edited 1 time in total.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."